Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail rejection order by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan in a case from Khagaria

In Abhinav Pandey vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi passed an order dated September 8, 2025, wherein, bail was granted to the petitioner. The order reads: "In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail in connection with the FIR No. 1019 of 2021, registered with Police Station-Mufassil, District-Khagaria, Bihar, if not required in any other case, subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer/ Trial Court. 

In his order dated February 7, 2025, Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the High Court as he apprehende his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 147 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. 

Earlier also the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner had filed before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5565 of 2023 but he had withdrawn and the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed with a liberty to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail. Justice Sharan had observed: "Now, the petitioner had not surrendered before the court below and filed the second anticipatory bail application on the new ground. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.". Supreme Court has reversed this order. 

Supreme Court upholds order by Justice Soni Shrivastava refusing grant of anticipatory bail

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated August 25, 2025 in the case related to a scam in the University and the alleged financial defraud by all the petitioners. . It reads:”It is also a fact that the special leave petitions preferred by Mr. Jitendra Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.7000/2025 @ D.No.22186/2025), Mr. Manoj Gupta(SLP (Crl.) No. 7168/2025 @ D.No. 24324/2025), Dr. Ashok Kumar (SLP (Crl.) No.8245/2025 @ D.No.27267/2025) and Mr. Sunil Agarwal(SLP (Crl.) No.8215/2025 @ D.No.27269 of 2025) asking pre-arrest bail have been rejected by this Court. 2) Considering all these aspects, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stand rejected….3) However, the officers are at liberty to take recourse as permissible.” The special leave to appeal (Criminal) arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 17, 2025 in Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar passed by the Patna High Court. 

In Kauleshwar Prasad Sah vs. The State of Bihar through Spl. Vigilance Unit, Patna, Bihar (2025), in her 7-page long order dated April 17, 2025, Justice Soni Srivastava of Patna High Court had concluded:”…it appears that there is strong allegation of conspiracy as against the present petitioner showing his involvement and also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been denied the anticipatory bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 74836 of 2024, Vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 32493 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 22548 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 33718 of 2024, Cr. Misc No. 31143 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32191 of 2024, Cr. Misc. No. 32719 of 2024 and Cr. Misc. No. 83228 of 2024 and also considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Kumar Bansal (Supra), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and his prayer for bail is hereby, rejected. 12. This application stands dismissed.” 

Justice Srivastava referred to Supreme Court’s paragraphs 23-26 of the decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. The State of Punjab (Special Leave to Appeal (CRL). No.3247 of 2025) reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 291. It reads:  “23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of the public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused's liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the Courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature of aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the Court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant- accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the un-savoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long". In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell. because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order; then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties.” 

The petitioner had approached the Court apprehending his arrest in connection with Special Case No. 48 of 2021 arising out of Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 registered under sections 109, 120B, 201, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471,506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as sections 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (b) r/w 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the FIR, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, while working as the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya hatched a criminal conspiracy with the assistance of Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University, the Registrar, Patliputra University private firms namely, Ms Poorva Graphics & M/s XLICT software Pvt. Ltd and other unknown accused persons and fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the Government to the extent of Rs. 20 crores during the year 2019-21 in the matter of purchase of various items related to the use of University during examination and otherwise, it is alleged that ignoring the advice of the competent officer, the accused persons raised bill to the extent of Rs. 20 crores from Magadh University and Veer Kunwar Singh University without assessing the requirement and violating the tender procedure and justification of rates etc. The Finance Officer, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Registrar Patliputra University cleared all the fraudulent bills of the private firms. The petitioner, who was officiating as the Finance Officer of Patliputra University, was deputed to Magadh University as Finance Officer by the order of the Chancellor/Governor of Bihar where he served in the capacity of Finance Officer from April 15, 2021 to July 4, 2021. The allegation against the petitioner was that he connived with the main accused, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the then Vice Chancellor and other accused persons to clear the fraudulent bills of accused nos. 3 and 4. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the High Court that from bare perusal of the First Information Report, it can be inferred at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the investigation and the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 20.03.2023. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that being the Finance Officer, the petitioner is bound to act in accordance with the orders of the Vice Chancellor. Section 16 of the Act also reflects that the Finance Officer has no role in making any financial decisions for the University, rather he holds a formal role as a co-signatory upon the payment of cheques. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had lodged complaints with secretary, Governor Secretariat about the mishaps of the University long before the initiation of the present case. Annexure-4 to the present application has been brought on record to substantiate the said submission. 

The Special Public Prosecutor for the Vigilance (SVU) opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the SVU. It has been stated in paragraphs-10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was in connivance with the prime accused and other accused persons. There was a fraud in supply made by the accused nos. 2 and 3 and knowing these facts the Examination Controller and the petitioner signed the cheques. Hence, the petitioner is a part of criminal conspiracy due to which huge amount of Government of Bihar was misappropriated. The counsel for the Special P.P. for the SVU hence, submits that a huge loss has been caused to the state exchequer and the petitioner is part of the said conspiracy. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the anticipatory bail application of several similarly situated accused persons have already been rejected by the High Court. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in Santosh So Dwarkadas Fafat vs. State of Maharastra (2017) 9 SCC 714, Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI through Director 2021 SCC Online SC 941,  Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. Reported as (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299. 

Supreme Court stays proceedings before Trial Court, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refused to quash FIR in a private dispute under corporate law

In Sarita Bajaj & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order dated July 18, 2025 staying further proceedings before the Trial Court. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 20-page long judgement dated May 9, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed. 32. The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. 33. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest."

Drawing on the judgement passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Chaudhari was "convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."  He observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

Sarita Bajaj, the Petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 at Kotwali Police Station in 2024 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station, alleging inter alia, that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He also alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, along with other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. The parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. 

The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicated that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. It was confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, Petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On February 27, 2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

On February 27, 2021, on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated August 30, 2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so. On February 27, 2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on February 28, 2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a resolution, dated August 31, 2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On April 3, 2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting.

The informant had already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in 2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated February 27, 2021 were forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs. Notably, certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition were not complied with or honoured by the informant. In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which has been registered as a Title Suit of 2023. Among other allegations, the informant alleged that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant also claimed that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. 

Under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. 

Besides this, an application was filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in 2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400. 

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On November 8, 2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated December 4, 2023.

Notably, in the counter affidavit, filed by Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the Respondent No. 5, dated February 4, 2025, the High Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties falsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.. In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid.

However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. Later, Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Court, claiming that, as a Director of Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as August 2, 2021. In the application under Section 7 of IBC, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated September 20, 2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by NCLT, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to NCLAT New Delhi.

 

Supreme Court warns Shailesh Kumar, an advocate from Begusarai

In Shailesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K Singh observed:"The application is totally frivolous. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we refrain to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner at this time. If he will move any such application in future, strict action will be taken against him." It was filed on October 29, 2024 and registered on January 27, 2025 against Court's final judgment and order dated October 5, 2024. The order May 9, 2025 states that the case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated October 5, 2024 in M.A. No.1500/2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12133/2024 passed by the Supreme Court of India but final judgment and order seems to be unavailable on the Court's website. The order dated February 2, 2024 reads: "The petitioner, who appears in person, is not present. The matter was listed on 10.11.2023 and also on 12.12.2023. However, none had appeared. On two dates, no adverse orders were passed.The special leave petition is dismissed in default."

The order dated August 30, 2024 by bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had recorded: "The petitioner has informed this Court that now he is law graduate. He candidly acknowledges that earlier he had 42 mobile numbers and about 15 bank accounts. That being so, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the petitioner appears before the Trial Court and extends full cooperation in the pending proceedings."

Supreme Court's order dated December 12, 2023 shows that the case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 12, 2023 in CRWJC No. 2430/2018 passed by the Patna High Court but the judgment and order in question seems to be unavailable on the High Court's website. 

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refuses to quash FIR because forgery is a serious offence with criminal liability, decided not to evaluate merit of allegations at FIR stage

In Sarita Baja & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court concluded:"The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest." The judgement was delivered on May 9, 2025. The two other petitioners are: Ajay Kumar Bajaj and Awi Bajaj. The other four respondents are: Additional Chief Secretary, the Home Department, Government of Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Station House Officer, Kotwali, Patna and Sushil Kumar Bajaj.

The Court refused to quash the FIR lodged in Kotwali, Patna dated August 18, 2023 because "Forgery (under Section 463 IPC) and using forged documents (under Section 471 IPC) are considered serious offences with substantial criminal liability. This Court recognize that quashing an FIR for such serious offenses like forgery could undermine the integrity of the legal system and prevent the discovery of the truth. At the stage of the FIR, the Court will not evaluate the merit of the allegations. This Court believes that the police are required to investigate the facts and verify the authenticity of the documents before a final decision is made." 

The Court observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

The petitioner had invoked Constitutional writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 alfor the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to alleging that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He further alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are full brothers. On February 17, 2021, both parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, alongwith other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. Additionally, the parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicate that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant has acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. Additionally, it has been confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. On 27.02.2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. vide a notice dated 27.02.2021 and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. On the same date, i.e., on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated 30.08.2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so.

On 27.02.2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently  issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on 28.02.2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company.

Notably, Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Similarly, another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a  resolution, dated 31.08.2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On 03.04.2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting the informant has already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under C.P. No. 250 KB/2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated 27.02.2021 are forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs.

It is important to note that certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition have not been complied with or honoured by the  informant.

In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which was registered as Title Suit No. 02 of 2023.

The informant alleges that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant further claims that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. It is important to note that under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. Additionally, an application has been filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, under CP (IB) No. 327/KB/2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400/-.

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On 08.11.2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated 04.12.2023.

The Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully  transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties alsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.

In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid. However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. 

Later on, the Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the present Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as 02.08.2021. In the application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated 20.09.2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 

It finding reads: “24. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was Director from 12.05.2014 Buildcon Private Limited' i.e.. the Corporate Debtor. Letter dated 20.09.2010, which is sheet anchor of the Financial Creditor to contend that there was interest component of 12% P.A. clearly becomes unauthorised and unreliable. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was not Director on 20.09.2010 of the Corporate Debtor and could not have written to the Financial Creditor, containing the terms and conditions of loan whereas no loan was ever extended by Financial Creditor to the Corporate Debtor of the terms and conditions as contained in the Letter dated 20.09.2010. Letter dated 20.09.2010 was impeached and termed as fabricated Letter.” 

It also found: "30. The sequence of the event and transaction between the Parties clearly proves that transfer of the amount by Financial Creditor to the Appellant were done by one Family Company to another Family Company and was not by way of loan nor any disbursal for any time value of money has been proved from any material on the record.” 

Taking note of these findings, the High Court observed that it "is convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."

Justice Arvind Singh Chandel orders re-consideration dismissal order

In Dilip Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Arvind Singh Chandel concluded:"Considering the submissions made by both the counsels, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the respondents who shall re-consider the order of dismissal of the petitioner in the light of mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases so referred earlier herein. It is further directed that the competent authority will exercise and conclude the proceeding as early as possible probably within 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Court and pass a reasoned order." It added that the petitioner was granted a liberty to approach the Court again if occasion will arise subsequently. The petition was disposed of. The judgement was delivered on May 1, 2025.

The  petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction or directions in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondents to set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2016 dismissing the petitioner passed by the S.P. Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Departmental Proceeding and also set aside the impugned order passed by the DIG Shahabad Range in appeal of petitioner on 23.12.2016. He also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his own post with all consequential benefits, in term of his acquittal in alleged Criminal Case by the Trial Court. He sought issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the concerned respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his own post with all consequential benefits, in term of his acquittal in alleged criminal case by the Trial Court as the others have been benefited in similar matter in respect of High Court's order/judgments as well as Supreme Court Judgments. 

The other respondents are: Director General-Cum- I.G. of Police, Bihar, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Shahabad Range, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas. Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabhua). The counsel submitted that the matter of the petitioner is squarely covered with the observations made in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 379, G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 446 and Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2024 (1) SCC. 

These referred judgment passed by the Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Prakash Kumar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar in CWJC No. 4084 of 2020.

... 

Patna High Court quashes "local bailors" condition for Pakistani citizen for bail of Khadija Noor

In Khadija Noor vs. The State of Bihar (2025), on March 3, 2025, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court set aside and quashed qua condition imposed as above qua local bailors through order dated October 18, 2022 by Additional  Sessions Judge XII, Sitamarhi. The  criminal miscellaneous application was filed for quashing of one of the condition of bail, as imposed through order dated October 18, 2022, arising out of a case registered for the offences under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 34 of the IPC and 14 of Foreigners Act, 2004.

The trial court had imposed a condition that “both the bailors" should be local resident of Sitamarhi”. The petitioner admittedly a Pakistani citizen and, has been in custody since October 8, 2022, even after granting the bail for want of local bailors.  

Y.C. Verma, senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entered into the territory of India to solemnize her marriage with one Sayed Hyder, a resident of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. While entering in the Indian territory through Indo-Nepal border, she was apprehended and booked under provisions of law. He submitted that Sayed Hyder who is proposed “groom” of petitioner is ready to stand as a bailor for the petitioner and his one brother or other close family members are also ready to stand as another bailor for petitioner, who are also the resident of Hyderabad and are Indian citizen but due to above condition they are not in position to stand as bailors for petitioner. He submitted that certain fundamental rights are even available to foreign citizens and even after granting bail keeping petitioner in jail since last more than 2 years is amounting to violation of her fundamental rights just in want of local bailors. It was pointed out that it is a classical case of territorial and geographical biasness when a citizen of this country residing in Hyderabad is ready to stand as sureties and bailors for this petitioner. 

In support of his submission, the senior counsel took shelter of para no. 33 of the legal report of Supreme Court as available through Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4SCC 47. He relied upon legal report of Supreme Court as available through Girish Gandhi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2024) 8 SCR 561 where he mainly relied upon para 24 and 26 of the case. 

The petitioner after granting bail remained in custody for more than 2 years in want of “local bailors” despite of the availability of bailors from other parts of this country trial court/ concerned court is directed to release the petitioner on bail where one of the bailor shall be Sayed Hyder frim Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and the other bailor shall be the brother of Sayed Hyder in terms of para 11 of the petition, with following conditions:-

(i) Both the bailors are directed to surrender their passport in original before the learned trial court, if they had or to make statement on affidavit that they are not the holder of the Indian Passport, in case, they don’t have it.

(ii)  trial court must be satisfied with the identity of both bailors as aforesaid through their Adhaar Card, PAN Card and also voter card before accepting the bail bond.

(iii) D.G.P. of the State be also informed to direct local SHO to remain vigilant, where petitioner and bailors must report to local police once in a month during pendency of the trial.

(iv) Sayed Hyder, must undertake on affidavit that during pendency of trial, he must keep petitioner with all her dignity, safety and care with him.

(v) Sayed Hyder is directed to ensure the presence of petitioner in the Court as and when required by the court during the pendency of the trial.

(vi) In case of any illness of petitioner and also in case of any unforeseen event, Sayed Hyder must report to local SHO, immediately and also the ld. trial court.

(vii) Considering the fact as petitioner is a Pakistani citizen trial court is directed to conclude the trial at its  earliest, preferably within one year.

(viii) If the occasion arises, trial court upon acquittal or conviction, after completion of sentence (subject to any order of appellate court), must take immediate steps, to deport petitioner from country for Pakistan, in accordance with law. 

Also read: Sitamarhi Trial Court seeking "local bailor" from a Pakistani citizen for bail, Patna High Court to hear case of Khadija Noor

Supreme Court exploring mediated settlement in case of Vedacharya Sankat Mochan Tripathi and his wife Sukanya Pandey after Patna High Court rejected anticipatory bail application

In a case arising out of impugned judgment and order dated September 30, 2024 by Justice Satyvrat Verma of Patna High Court in Sankat Mochan Tripathi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr (2025), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih ordered: "the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with Complaint Case No.1031/2023 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua, Bihar subject to condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation....Prima facie, this may be an appropriate case where the petitioner and the second respondent should try to resolve the dispute between them through a mediated settlement." The second respondent is Sukanya Pandey @Beauty. The order was passed on October 24, 2024. 

The order of March 3, 2025 reads:"We are of the view that the petitioner should come out with a better offer than what he is proposing. To enable the petitioner to come out with a reasonable offer, list the Petition on 24th March, 2025. In the meanwhile, the interim relief granted earlier by this Court to continue." On December 6, 2024, the Court's order recorded: "The petitioner and the second respondent are residing separately from the year 2021. Therefore, we refer the dispute between the parties to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Accordingly, we direct the parties to remain present before the Coordinator, Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 19th December, 12024 at 2.30 p.m. The first meeting with the coordinator shall be virtual. The learned Mediator appointed by the Supreme Court Mediation Centre is requested to conduct the proceedings, as far as possible, through the medium of video conference. In the event, the learned Mediator desires personal presence of the parties, the petitioner shall pay the requisite amount to the respondent no.2 towards travelling charges and stay in Delhi, as may be suggested by the learned Mediator. Mediation Report to be submitted within two months. List the matter immediately after receipt of the report." On February 14, 2025, the Court had directed the petitioner and Sukanya Pandey, the second respondent to remain present through video conference on March 3, 2025.

The High Court had not extended "the privilege of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. It had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner." Apprehending his arrest in a Complaint Case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Sankat Mochan Tripathi, the petitioner had approached the Court. The petitioner had submitted that petitioner husband has been falsely implicated in the instant case by Sukanya Pandey @Beauty. The petitioner was married to the complainant on May 7, 2021. She has alleged that after marriage the accused persons including the petitioner were demanding a bullet motorcycle and a golden chain. When the demand was not met, she was ousted from her matrimonial home after assaulting her. The petitioner is a Vedacharya, recognized by Banaras Bidwat Parishad. It was submitted it does not appear probable that a person of that stature would indulge in such an act.

The petitioner has filed a divorce case which is pending adjudication. The counsel of the wife had submitted that petitioner right was never interested in keeping his wife with honour and dignity from the very outset. It was further submitted that till the time divorce application is decided in favour of the petitioner, Suknaya Pandey will  remain his legally wedded wife who is suffering in absence of any financial support from the petitioner. She ousted and is completely dependent on her parents and the petitioner till date has not paid anything towards her maintenance.

 

FIR under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & provisions of IPC quashed: Justice Sandeep Kumar

Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar quashed F.I.R. registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 376, 376-D, 420, 313, 120-B, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under section 67 of the Information Technology Act and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. including the order dated January 6, 2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Danapur. The Magistrate had passed the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R.. 

In his 34-page long judgement in Sanjeev Hans vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2024). Justice Kumar examined as to whether the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner or not besides non-compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.

The other respondents were: Director General of Police, Patna, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, Station House Officer, Rupaspur Police Station, Patna and Gayatri Kumari of Kataiya, Jamhur, Aurangabad.

Gayatri Kumari, the complainant is a practicing advocate in Allahabad High Court. She was practicing in Patna High Court from 2009 to 2015. In the month of February, 2016 while the complainant was staying at the residence of Senior Advocate Gajendra Prasad Yadav situated at Golden Plaza Apartment, Chitkohra for getting her case mentioned, a junior advocate namely, Shiv Nandan Bharti introduced her to Gulab Yadav, who was an M.L.A. It has also been alleged that said Gulab Yadav lured her by saying that he will get make her member of Women Commission and asked her to come to meet him along with her bio-data at his residence situated at Flat No.401, Bindeshwari Apartment. It is alleged that when the Complainant reached the house of said Gulab Yadav, he raped her at gun point and when the complainant was going to register F.I.R. then Gulab Yadav asked his servant Lalit to bring vermilion and put the same on the forehead of the complainant and said that they were married and they will get their marriage registered and asked for some time to get divorce from his first wife. 

She alleged that Gulab Yadav called the complainant to Pune to show the papers of the Court, by which divorce has been granted. On July 8, 2017 when thec complainant reached Hotel Bestil then Gulab Yadav introduced her to Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner and both raped her after mixing some intoxicating substance in her food. When the complainant regained her consciousness, Gulab Yadav showed her the video of her rape and sent the same on her mobile and threatened her to make the video viral. The complainant got scared and started to live in Allahabad and when she missed her periods, she informed Gulab Yadav about the same but Gulab Yadav asked her to take medicine for abortion which she consumed, however, she had to get admitted in hospital due to medical condition. Thereafter, Gulab Yadav got the complainant admitted in Rahul Judicial Classes, Delhi and arranged for her stay in a hostel in Mukherji Nagar, Delhi. 

She also alleged that Gulab Yadav used to call the complainant at different hotels and raped her where Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner also used to accompany Gulab Yadav. It has also been alleged that on February 13, 2018 at Ashoka Hotel, on February 14, 2018 at Park Avenue hotel and on March 27, 2018 at Le’ Meriden hotel, she was gang raped and resultantly she conceived and when she informed the accused about this, the accused persons threatened her. Out of fear, the complainant vacated her hostel and started living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where she gave birth to a male child on October 25, 2018 and when she informed this fact to Gulab Yadav, he told that it can not be his child as he has undergone vasectomy and said that the child is of Sanjeev Hans. When the complainant tried to contact Sanjeev Hans, he did not speak with her and since then the complainant is hiding from the accused persons as they are quite influential. It has further been alleged that the complainant went to Rupaspur Police Station for registering the F.I.R., but the Police did not register the F.I.R. by saying that the accused persons are quite influential and then the complainant sent the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Patna on October 28, 2021, however no action was taken in this regard. 

The complaint case was filed by the complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna for lodging the F.I.R. The Magistrate in his order dated November  18, 2021 recorded that the complainant has not produced any document in support of her claim of compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, called a report from the concerned Police Station. Despite granting sufficient opportunity, the complainant did not appear for recording her S.A. and resultantly, the Magistrate vide order dated September 20, 2022 dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the High Court by way of filing Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 has disposed of the said petition with certain directions. 

The relevant part of the order dated December 12, 2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 reads as under:-

“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, this Court finds that there is no dispute with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, police was conducting a preliminary enquiry into the matter and a report was required to be sent to the learned ACJM Court at Danapur. The said report has been submitted or not is not within the knowledge of learned counsel for the State.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the matter was pending at the stage of preliminary enquiry and the report had been called for from the police, the learned ACJM should not have acted in haste in taking up the enquiry at his level by treating it as a complaint case.

The Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2023  allowed the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint petition under sectionn156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police for registration of the F.I.R and accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The Investigating Officer of the case has filed an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-1, Danapur for deputing a Magistrate so that blood sample of Gulab Yadav, the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5 and the petitioner be collected for DNA test but the Magistrate vide order dated 06.03.2023 has rejected the prayer of the Investigating Officer by holding that he has no jurisdiction to pass an order for DNA test. 

The counsel for Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5 that respondent no.5 is a practicing advocate and Gulab Yadav and present petitioner used to commit rape with her. Since Gulab Yadav has undergone vasectomy, the presumption goes to establish that the petitioner is the biological father of the son of the respondent no.5. Thus, the DNA test of the petitioner and the son of the respondent no.5 is required in order to determine the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5.

The judgement reads: "This Court can consider the quashing of the F.I.R. for preventing the abuse of the process of the Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice and in my opinion, it is a fit case for interference in view of glaring facts of the case. This Court finds that it is a malafide prosecution because of some dispute... "

The Court observed:"From reading of the complaint petition, I find that the complainant has not filed any affidavit as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme in the aforesaid case and she has also not filed any document with the complaint petition showing compliance of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, on account of non-compliance of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., the direction for registration of the F.I.R. vide order dated 06.01.2023 is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. The learned Magistrate though recorded non-compliance of the provisions of section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 18.11.2021 but, has proceeded to pass the order dated 06.01.2023 for registration of the F.I.R. Before the learned Magistrate passed an order for registration of the F.I.R., he had passed an order for preliminary enquiry. On 18.11.2021, the learned Magistrate directed for calling for a report from the concerned Police Station through Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna in light of the complaint petition. On 11.05.2022, the Police submitted an application saying that the Police was directed to submit the report after conducting the enquiry outside the State. Thereafter, the case was started as a complaint case and because of the nonappearance of the complainant on a number of days, the complaint was dismissed on 20.09.2022. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 has set aside the orders dated 12.05.2022 and 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, on 06.01.2023, the preliminary enquiry report of the police was opened in the Court, which was submitted in a sealed cover, and after considering the same, the learned Magistrate directed for registration of the F.I.R. 

The moment the enquiry report was opened by the learned Magistrate on 06.01.2023, before directing for registration of the F.I.R., the fact that the complainant/informant claimed herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav and she gave birth to a child claiming to be the son of Gulab Yadav was well within the knowledge of the Court as well as the complainant /informant. The complainant / informant while filing the complaint / FIR has not disclosed the true facts i.e. she was treating herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav, whenever she was hospitalized she claimed herself to be the wife of Gulab Yadav and when a boy was born the name of Gulab Yadav was disclosed by the complainant/informant saying that the father of her son is Gulab Yadav. These materials have been collected by the Police during the enquiry and they have been suppressed by the complainant / informant in her complaint/F.I.R.

From reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the complainant / informant has made allegation against two persons i.e. Gulab Yadav and the present petitioner. The date of occurrence mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. is from February, 2016 to the date of filing of the complaint petition i.e. 16.11.2021. Initially, the allegations are levelled against Gulab Yadav who is said to have committed rape with the complainant/informant. The name of the petitioner is mentioned for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 08.07.2017 at a Hotel in Pune alleging that the complainant was sexually assaulted by both the accused persons and Gulab Yadav made a video of the same and thereafter threatened her of making the video viral. Further allegations levelled in the complaint/F.I.R. primarily against Gulab Yadav and the complainant/informant has mentioned the name of the petitioner as an accomplice of Gulab Yadav and has alleged that he also used to commit rape with her. The complainant/informant is admittedly a lawyer practicing since 2009 and the complaint has been filed after about five years of the alleged incident of rape.

The complainant has waited for five years to file the complaint and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed filing of the complaint petition.

The petitioner herself is a grown-up woman, who is practicing Law and as per her own statement she was in a relationship with Gulab Yadav. 

Sitamarhi Trial Court seeking "local bailor" from a Pakistani citizen for bail, Patna High Court to hear case of Khadija Noor

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

-Article 21, Constitution of India 

A criminal miscellaneous case Khadija Noor vs. The State of Bihar registered on March 7, 2024 came up for hearing on February 11, 2025 before Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court in Court No. 108. The case arose out of a case filed in Sursand Thana, Sitamarhi district in 2022. The petitioner is the daughter of Md. Ishaoak, resident of Abdullahpur, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Yogesh Chandra Verma, senior advocate submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the requirement of "local surety" for the grant of bail is an onerous condition on a foreign national. The case is listed for further hearing on March 3, 2025.

Criminal Miscellaneous application has been  filed for grant of Regular bail to the petitioner, who has been made accused in connection for the offences under Section 467/468/471/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 14 Foreigners Act 2004. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 

The prosecution story as per the FIR is that on August 8, 2022 at around 1 P.M. the informant namely Bishan Das, Company Commander, SSB, Sitamarhi, while on duty at the India Nepal border found that 2 Persons (one male and one female) were coming from Nepal and entering into Indian territory. While entering into the Indian territory the female was stopped by the lady officer on duty and questioned but she could not answer anything about her identity. When her Aadhaar Number 646899362534 and the name Arzoo Baghdayia was checked then it was found that her Aadhaar Number was fake. On interrogation, it emerged that she is a Pakistani citizen. The person who was accompanying her was Jeevan Kumar Sah, a Nepali citizen. The petitioner is languishing in jail since August 8, 2022. The petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail by relaxing the condition imposed by the Trial Court on October 18, 2022 in Sursand. The petitioner is prepared to furnish sufficient bail bond and further prepared to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. 

The petitioner had preferred his regular bail application before the court of District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sursand which was heard and by order dated  October 18, 2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi with a condition that "Both the Bailor should be local resident" which is quite impossible for the petitioner to fulfill this condition. The petitioner is a resident of Pakistan and has no known person in Sitamarhi. It wad prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail by relaxing the condition imposed by the Court after furnishing sufficient bail bond. 

In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2008), the Supreme Court held that the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and a presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal and an accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. 

Prior to the hearing on February 11, on May 7, 2024, High Court's Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra's order had recorded:" the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to convert the present application into one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Permission is accorded."

On October 22, 2024, High Court's Justice Chandra Prakash Singh passed an order saying, "the petitioner is permitted to make informant as O.P. No. 2 in course of the day. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to take steps for fresh service of notice upon the O.P. No. 2 through the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, for which requisites under Speed Post with A/D, must be filed within a period of one week. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi, is directed to get it served on the O.P. No. 2 who is the informant of Sursand P.S. Case No. 401 of 2022 and send a report to this Court within a period of one week from the date of its receipt. Put up this matter after appearance of the O.P. No. 2 or on receipt of service report, whichever is earlier, under appropriate heading." Opposite Party No. 2 is Bishan Das, Battalion Commander, SSB Bhithamore, Sursand, Sitamarhi. 

Notably, the petitioner is from Faisalabad which was conquered on February 22, 1849 by virtue of victory of British East India Company in Punjab. Faisalabad came into the control of the British Empire. Until 1977, Faisalabad was formerly known as Lyallpur. In 1890, it was named after Sir James Broadwood Lyall, the British lieutenant governor of the Punjab. It became headquarters of the Lower Chenab colony and in 1898 was incorporated as a municipality. In 1904, Lyallpur was given the status of district. In September 1977, the city of Lyallpur was renamed Faisalabad. Faisalabad was always part of undivided India. 

The FIR and seizure list reveals no incriminating material from the conscious possession of the petitioner. No objectionable material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner from Faisalabad. 

In Kasparek Petr vs. The State of Bihar & Ors  since the petitioner has been found to be without a Visa he could be deported to his own country but he cannot be detained in a prison. The order reads: "the Embassy of the Czech Republic in New Delhi is directed to take charge of the petitioner immediately within 7 days from the date of communication of this order to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be deported to his Country with the help of the Embassy of his Country within 15 days thereafter. During this period the petitioner will not be allowed to roam around outside the Embassy of the Czech Republic. Let a server copy of this order be sent to the Embassy of the Czech Republic through the learned Advocate for the petitioner for information and necessary action at the earliest." The order was passed on June 21, 2024.

This decision in Kasparek Petr case was quoted with approval in Agastin Chinet Nevot vs State of Bihar (2024), Patna High Court granted bail on July 20, 2024 to a petitioner from Nigeria. In his order Justice Sandeep Kumar noted that the petitioner was a monk associated with ISKCON, allowed the bail application considering petitioner’s submission that if he was granted bail, then he might be directed to stay in ISKCON Patna, and co-operate in the trial. The petitioner was the resident of Janakpur Dham, Vihar Kund, Hanuman Mandir, Nepal, was voluntarily serving as a ‘monk’ and was a bona fide member of International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). The Court directed that after the grant of bail, petitioner would stay in ISKCON, Patna and till the conclusion of the trial, the President of ISKCON, Patna would take responsibility for the stay and appearance of petitioner in Patna ISKCON and the original passport of petitioner shall be deposited in the Trial Court. The Court accepted petitioner’s request for transfer of the case from the District Judge, Sitamarhi to the District Judge, Patna. 

In Moti Ram vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1978), Supreme Court's division bench of Justices V. R. Krishnaiyer and D. A. Desai held:"Bail covers release on  one's own bond with or without sureties, as the legal literature, Indian and Anglo-American on  bail jurisprudence  lends countenance  and the need for  liberal interpretation in areas of social justice individual freedom and indigent's rights  justifies. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables. [344 G, 347 C] A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code  and prisoners'  rights,  when cast  in  ambiguous language become precarious. [345 C] 'Bail'  in s.  436 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests 'with or without  sureties. And, 'bail bond` in s. 436(2) covers own bond. [345 E]  'Bail' in s. 437 (2) suggests release, the accent being on undertaking to appear. when directed, not on the production of  sureties. But s. 137(2) distinguishes between bail and bond, without sureties. [345 F-G] Section 445 suggests, especially  read with the marginal note  that deposit  of money  will do duty for bond 'with or without sureties'. [345 G] Superficially viewed, s. 441 (1) uses the words 'bail' and  'own bond' as antithetical,  if the  reading is liberal. Incisively  understood, Section 441(1) provides for both the  bond of  the accused and the undertaking of the surety being conditioned in the manner mentioned in the sub-section. To  read "ail" as including  only cases of release with sureties  will stultify  the sub-section, for then, an accused released  on his own bond without bail, i.e. surety, cannot be  conditioned to  attend at  the  appointed  place. Section 441(2) uses the  word 'bail'  to include 'own bond' loosely as  meaning one or the other or both. Moreover, an accused, in  judicial custody, actual or  potential, may be released by  the Court to further  the ends  of justice and nothing in s 441(1) compels a contrary meaning. S. 441(2) and  (3) use the  word  'bail'  generically because the expression  is intended  to  cover  bond  with or  without sureties; [345 H, 346 A-C] When the Court of appeal as per the import of s. '389(1) may  release a convict on  his  own  bond  without sureties, surely,  it cannot  be that an undertrial is worse off than a convict or that the power of the Court to release increases when the guilt  is established.  It is  not the Court's status but  the  applicant  guilt  status  that  is germane. That a guilty man may claim judicial liberation pro tempore without sureties while an undertrial cannot, is a reductio ad absurdum. [346 D-E]" 

Moti Ram case decision which authoritatively dealt with bail jurisprudence-Enlargement on bail with or without sureties-Scope of  Ss. 440(1), 441, 445 read with s. 389(1) of the CrPC is germane for the Khadija Noor's case. 

In  Sartori Livio vs. The State (2005), Delhi High Court's Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed passed an judgement on February 22, 2005 wherein he cited portion of High Court's decision dated July 31, 2000 in Nasimjon Komlov v. Customs in CRLM (M) No. 2038/2000 which reads:"It would be a shame if courts are going to keep persons incarcerated merely because they are of foreign origin even though prima facie no case is made out against them. This would be a negation of the valued principles of rule of law and violative of the constitutional mandate and principles of human rights." The decision in Sartori Livio case has been cited with approval in High Court's decision dated April 20, 2021 in Nastor Farirai Ziso vs. NCB (2021) by Rajnish Bhatnagar. These decisions are relevant for the Khadija Noor's case as well. 

Dr. Gopal Krishna

The author is a lawyer and a researcher of philosophy and law. His current work is focused on the philosophy of digital totalitarianism and the monetisation of nature. He has appeared before the Supreme Court's Committees, Parliamentary Committees of Europe, Germany and India and UN agencies on the subject of national and international legislation. He is the co-founder of the East India Research Council (EIRC). He is the convener of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) which has been campaigning for freedom from UID/Aadhaar/NPR and DNA profiling through criminal identification procedures since 2010. He had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that questioned and trashed the biometric identification of Indians through UID/Aadhaar Number. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin-based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC). He is also the editor of www.toxicswatch.org.)

Supreme Court quashes Patna High Court's decision and FIR, stops criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank

In HDFC Bank vs. The State of Bihar, Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated June 8, 2022 passed by Justice Partha Sarthy, the Single Bench of Patna High Court. The Supreme Court's judgement dated October 22, 2024 reads: "We are of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank." Besides the State of Bihar, there were four respondents namely, DGP, Patna, SP, Patna, the Officer In Charge and Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV). 

The Court also quashed and set aside the First Information Report being Case No. 549 of 2021 registered at Gandhi Maidan Police Station, Patna on November 22, 2021, against certain officials of the appellant-bank working at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Notably, a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the locker of Sunita Khemka. 

On October 5, 2021, an order under Section 132(3) of the  Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 was served upon the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank at its Exhibition Road Branch, Patna by the concerned Authorized Officer, thereby directing the said branch of the appellant-bank to stop the operation of any bank lockers, bank accounts and fixed deposits standing in the names of Sunil Khemka (HUF), Sunita Khemka and Shivani Khemka, among several other individuals and entities, with immediate effect. It was further clarified that contravention of the order would render the Branch Manager liable under Section 275A of the IT Act and the same would result in penal action. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant-bank stopped the operation of the bank accounts, bank lockers and fixed deposits of the individuals/entities mentioned in the order. Further, on 7th October,2021, the appellant-bank blocked the bank accounts of the income-tax assesses named in the order and also sealed the bank locker bearing No. 462 belonging to Smt. Sunita Khemka.

Later, on November 1, 2021, Priyanka Sharma, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV), the respondent No. 5 had issued an order to the Branch Manager of the appellant-bank directing the appellant-bank to revoke the restraint put on the bank accounts of Sunita Khemka and three other persons, in view of the restraining order dated October 5, 2021 passed under Section 132(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, the said persons, including Sunita Khemka, were to be allowed to operate their bank accounts. The said order was received by the concerned Branch Manager of the appellant-bank on November 8, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. However, on November 2, 2021 at 11:24 a.m., an email was sent to the Branch Manager which contained the same order. Thereafter, on November 9, 2021, the concerned branch of the appellant-bank allowed Sunita Khemka to operate her bank locker bearing No. 462 and proper entries recording the operation of the locker were made in the bank’s records. After that on November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 conducted a search and seizure operation at the aforementioned bank locker in the concerned branch of the appellant-bank wherein it was found that Sunita Khemka had operated her bank locker with the assistance of the concerned officers of the appellant-bank. This was validated by the entry made in the bank’s records and the CCTV footage of the bank. 

As a result, the concerned officials of the aforementioned branch of the appellant-bank were found to have breached the restraining order dated October 5, 2021. On November 20, 2021, Respondent No. 5 issued summons under Section 131(1A) of the IT Act to Abha Sinha-Branch Manager, Abhishek Kumar-Branch Operation Manager and Deepak Kumar-Teller Authoriser being the concerned officials of the appellant-bank. These officials attended the office of Respondent No. 5 and their statements were recorded wherein Abha Sinha and Abhishek Kumar stated that there had been an inadvertent error on the part of the bank officials and they had misinterpreted the order dated November 1, 2021. Since the said order pertained to the bank accounts of the concerned individuals including Sunita Khemka, the bank officials had misread the order to understand /assume that the revocation of the restraint extended to the bank lockers as well. Having misunderstood the order, the bank officials under a bona fide assumption that bank locker had been released as well, allowed Sunita Khemka to operate the same. The statement of Sunita Khemka was also recorded wherein she stated that her accountant Surendra Prasad, after speaking with Deepak Kumar, had informed her that the restraint on the aforementioned bank locker had been revoked and she could operate the said locker. This was specifically denied by Deepak Kumar in his statement. Dissatisfied with the said explanations, Respondent No. 5 submitted a written complaint to the SHO, Gandhi Maidan Police Station seeking to register an FIR against Sunita Khemka and the concerned bank officials on the ground that the order dated October 5, 2021 had been violated owing to the unlawful operation of the aforementioned locker. 

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered against Sunita Khemka and the staff of the appellant-bank on November 22, 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 37, 120B, 201, 207, 217, 406, 409, 420 and 462 of the IPC. HDFC bank preferred a Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case to invoke the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the quashing of the FIR. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition finding it to be devoid of merit.

The Supreme Court's judgement reads:"In the present case, the FIR does not show that the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception. For bringing out the offence under the ambit of Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients: (a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception; (b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; and (c) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement."

It observed: "The appellant-bank is a juristic person and as such, a question of mens rea does not arise. However, even reading the FIR and the complaint at their face value, there is nothing to show that the appellant-bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone deceived to deliver any property to any person, and that the mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. As such, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC would not be available."

With regard to the provisions of Section 409 of IPC, the following ingredients will have to be made out:
(a) That there has been any entrustment with the property, or with any dominion over property on a person in the capacity of a public servant or banker, etc.; (b) That the said person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property.

For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

The Court noted that "In the present case, there is not even an allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5. As such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would also not be applicable." It also noted that "since there was no entrustment of any property with the appellant-bank, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable."

The Court observed that "since the offences under Section 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank. The FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences. As such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable."

The Court relied on the observations made in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992). It observed: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

In Bhajan Lal's case, the Supreme Court said: "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 

Notably, High Court too had referred to the decision in the Bhajan Lal case. Drawing on Court's decision in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [(1985)2 SCC 370], the High Court had noted that while exercising its power to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. It had also relied on the decision in the case of State of Kerala v O.C. Kuttan [(1999)2 SCC 251], wherein the Supreme Court held that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings was to be exercised very sparingly and the Court was not to embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. It recalled the judgment in Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] wherein the Supreme Court has held that the first information report is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. What was significant was that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. It also took note of in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (judgment dated 13.4.2021 in Criminal Appeal no. 330 of 2021) wherein the Supreme Court held that it cannot thwart an investigation into a cognizable offences which is the statutory right and duty of the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception which is exercised sparingly with circumspection.

In the HDFC case, unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court observed: "We find that the present case would squarely fall within categories (2) and (3) of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and others (supra)." It stopped continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank.

Patna High Court sets aside judgment by Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in Koshi Hydal Power Station, Birpur, Saharsa case

In Vishwanath Gangul v. State of Bihar, Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar, Patna High Court found force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. He inferred that the submissions of the Vigilance is devoid of any merits. By its judgement, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 7, 2012 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 7 of 1998, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7/1998. It acquitted all the appellants of all the charges. They were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

The appeals were filed against the judgment of conviction and order of Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna, whereby and whereunder the accused appellants and others were found guilty and convicted and convicts Kapildeo Narain Prasad Sinha, Vishwanath Ganguli, Shashinath Jha, Deep Narain Mandal and Anil Kumar Rai were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 471 of the I.P.C. The convicts Kapildeo Narain Prasad Sinha, Vishwanath Ganguli, Shashinath Jha and Deep Narain Mandal were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 13(10(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The convict Anil Kumar Rai was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution was that an inquiry was conducted by the Crime Investigation Department and it was found that the estimate was prepared in the year 1986 for capital maintenance of Unit No. II of Koshi Hydal Power Station, Birpur, Saharsa under the supervision of Larson & Turbo Company, Calcutta. This estimate was prepared by the engineers of Larson & Turbo after physical verification of Unit No-II at Birpur. This estimate was prepared for Rs. 5,75,795/-, but the file relating to the said estimate could not return from Head Office, Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB), Vidyut Bhawan, Patna to Birpur and then in November, 1988, on the same basis, another estimate was prepared for Rs. 6,36,852/-. There was difference of time of one year and eleven months in between the first and second estimate and during that period there was price rise and due to which the amount of second estimate was raised. The estimates were prepared by the local Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. 

The second estimate was sent to Chief Engineer, Hydal and Investigation S.B. Ram for its acceptance, who sent it to the then Project Manager, Jal Vidyut Pratishtan, Sikidri K.P. Sinha and Executive Engineer (Civil) Ranchi V.N. Ganguli. These two persons arbitrarily enhanced the estimate to Rs. 8,93,330/- without obtaining price list of the articles. In enhancement of the estimate cost, the role was played by S.P. Ram, K.P. Sinha, V.N. Ganguli and D.N. Mandal, the then Executive Engineers, Koshi Hydal Power Station. It was also alleged that Phulanand Jha, the then Electrical Execution Engineer (now dead) was also one of the associates in enhancement of rate of estimate. D.N. Mandal was camping in Ranchi from Birpur only for this work. The second estimate of Rs. 6,36,852/- was also prepared by him and again a third estimate of Rs. 8,93,330/- was prepared in connivance of D.N. Mandal and other officials. In the file relating to the estimate which was sent to Chief Engineer Ranchi for its acceptance, it was specifically provided that the basis of estimate is Larson & Turbo but the accused persons did not obtain any rate of articles from Larson & Turbo and arbitrarily they enhanced the estimates. 

It was alleged that the materials required for capital maintenance of the second unit was purchased from the market without giving any advertisement or without obtaining any quotation, and as such, the accused persons arbitrarily enhanced the amount of third estimate. The accused persons even did not contact the Larson & Turbo company at the time of preparation of estimate. After that the work was got done by M/s Gaurav Constructions, Birpur on the basis of third estimate and its payment was made by Chief Engineer, Hydal and Investigation, Ranchi. M/s Gaurav Constructions & Company is not authorized for the work, rather it works as middleman and in fact the work was got done by technically expert firm in Ranchi.

On the basis of this report, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 1998 was registered under Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 467, 471 of the IPC, Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the P.C Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against altogether six accused persons above named under the aforesaid sections and thereafter cognizance was taken and the accused persons were put on trial. 

The counsel of the Vigilance has submitted that three estimates were prepared for capital maintenance of Unit No-II of Koshi Hydal Power Station, Birpur. The difference of amount in first and second estimates was due to time gape of one year and eleven months and price rise during that period. The first and second estimates are not under allegation in this case because it were prepared under the assistance of Larson @ Tubro company. However, the third estimate was prepared by the accused persons in connivance with each other without consultation of Larson @ Tubro Company, whereas it was specifically provided that estimate was to be prepared with the assistance of Larson @ Tubro and price fixed by it. 

Notably, Sant Kumar Sharma, the Investigating Officer (IO) has also stated in his evidence in para-5 that during the course of investigation, he came to know that the estimate was to be prepared with the assistance of Larson @ Tubro and the work was to be done by it, but in spite of that the accused persons did not follow the mandate without assigning any reason in this regard and arbitrarily prepared the third estimate enhancing the cost. 

The counsel for the Vigilance had submitted that the work was to be done by Larson @ Tubro company, but in spite of that the accused persons did not prefer to get the work done by Larson @ Tubro without assigning any reason in this regard and they arbitrarily got the work done by Gaurav Construction company. From the materials available on record, it is apparent that the accused persons prepared third estimate enhancing the amount of second estimate arbitrarily without any valid reason in connivance with each others and for their own benefit which caused loss of Rs, 2,56,478/- to the BSEB. The appellant's counsel submitted that prosecution was required to prove with cogent evidence of material but the entire case is based upon surmises and conjecture. The Court found appellant's submission to be convincing.